Appeal 2007-2875
Application 10/447,732
1 which clamp the allochiral cutting teeth 42 and 44 to the respective sides of the
2 cutting wheel 12. Each holder 46, 48 has two through bores with one bore being
3 threaded and the other bore being countersunk for the reception of a bolt head of
4 bolt 130, 132. Manning makes no provision for the removal of a broken bolt 130
5 or 132. Presumably, if only the bores in the holder are threaded, when one bolt
6 130 or 132 is sheared, the other bolt can be removed and the two holders would
7 come away from the wheel. However, there would be no mechanism to remove
8 the fastener 130 from the holder 46 or 48. Manning differs from the prior art in
9 that it does not show an engagement portion located at the end of the shank portion
10 of bolts 130 and 132 to cooperate with a tool used to engage and extract the bolt
11 130 or 132.
12 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
13 Whether a specification complies with the written description
14 requirement of § 112, ¶ 1, is a question of fact, which we review for clear
15 error on appeal from a bench trial. Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
16 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1991); Ralston Purina Co. v.
17 Far-Mar-Co, Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179
18 (Fed.Cir.1985). To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent
19 specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that
20 one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the
21 claimed invention.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565,
22 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012,
23 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed.Cir.1989) (“[T]he description must clearly
24 allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor]
25 invented what is claimed.”). Thus, an applicant complies with the written
26 description requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed
27 limitations, not that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive
28 means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth
29 the claimed invention.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
30
30 Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d
31
32 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013